Boeing Pushes Back 747-8 Program, First 777F Delivery Due Early 2009
November 14th, 2008
Cargolux Surprised At “Substantial Delay”
Carrier To Evaluate Fleet/Planning As A Result Of The Delays
Lufthansa Remains Committed To 747-8I
First 777F Delivery Now Scheduled For Early 2009
After announcing a slip in the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner due to disruption caused by the IAM strike, Boeing today confirmed a revised program schedule for both the 747-8F and 747-8 Intercontinental.
The new schedule now calls for first delivery of the 747-8F to launch customer Cargolux in the third quarter of 2010 as opposed to the third quarter of 2009. Deliveries for the 747-8I will commence from the second quarter of 2011, pushed back originally from late 2010.
Image courtesy of Newairplane.com
In a statement, Head Of Cargolux PR, J. Erpelding, told FleetBuzz Editorial.com that the carrier was surprised at the length of the delays.
“This is a substantial delay [up to one year] to the Dash 8. Perhaps its not really a surprise given the recent strike, (and a combination of other factors) but we’re still looking forward to taking delivery of our new freighters,” he said.
Erpelding also notes that it will not now have any new additional capacity for 2009. He noted that the airline would be conducting a review of its operations in lieu of the delays to the 747-8F.
Lufthansa, the current sole airline customer for the 747-8I tells FleetBuzz Editorial.com that it remains committed to the airplane.
“So far no exact new delivery date has been announced. Suggestions for a later delivery appointment are now being discussed with Boeing. Lufthansa holds on to the ordering of 20 B747-8,” says spokesperson S. Ptassek based in London for the German flag carrier.
“Our entire team has worked hard to mitigate growing schedule risk on this program but have been unable to overcome the collective impact of work statement increases to the original design, a tight supply of engineering resources, and the recent Machinists’ strike,” said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Scott Carson.
“We are clearly disappointed in what this schedule change means for our customers, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders. However, it is the appropriate and prudent decision to ensure a successful program, and we are committed to working with our customers to mitigate any disruption it causes them.“
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
Ross R. Bogue, vice president and general manager of the 747 program noted that “the remaining work on the 747-8 program is well defined,“.
Assembly of the first 747-8F commenced in August 2008.
Boeing cites supply chain issues that resulted from design changes to the 747-8 in an effort to tackle the higher than anticipated weight target as well as limited engineering resources as the key reasons behind the decision to push back both passenger and freighter models.
Cargolux CFO David Arendt had already confirmed that it was expecting its first 747-8F to be up to six months late due to the effects of the strike on Boeing’s production lines.
In its third quarter earnings call, CEO Jim McNerney had advised that costs on the 747-8 program had gone up, however he maintained that despite only having Lufthansa as an airline customer for the 747-8I, (aside from several BBJ orders) the model would be built.
“We are committed to working with our customers to mitigate any disruption this causes them,” says 747 spokesman Tim Bader.
There had also been growing concern that with the 787 flight test program dominating 2009, Boeing’s decision to push back on the 747-8 program means it will avoid flight testing overlaps and crewing issues - moreover, giving time for the company to more aggressively achieve its own weight targets on the 747-8.
Image courtesy of moonm
Boeing also today confirmed that the first delivery of the 777F to launch customer Air France would now take place in early 2009, attributing delays as a result of the recent industrial dispute.
“We’ve assessed the impact of the work stoppage on the 777 Freighter first delivery schedule and, at this time, we anticipate first delivery to be in the first quarter of 2009,” says 777 spokeswoman Carrie Thearle.
“We expect the third 777 Freighter, currently in production [F-GUOC], to be the first one delivered,” she added.
Air France was unavailable for comment on the delivery delay.
The first three 777F’s are for Air France, including the two airplanes currently undergoing flight certification tests.
China Southern Airlines is due to take delivery of the fourth 777F and Emirates SkyCargo is due to receive the fifth 777F in early 2009.
Sphere: Related ContentEntry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 747-8, Boeing 747-8F, Boeing 747-8I, Cargolux
17 Comments Add your own
1. boeing investor | November 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Oh no!
Queue Keesje, ready to deliver the 11th commandment on how Lufthansa will cancel!!!
2. keesje | November 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I think most people think the economic boom / competative pressure made Boeing commit to timetables they could not realize.
Boeing is “lucky” oil prices have dramatically decreased during recent months making it less of a burden to fly older less efficient aircraft a bit longer (+pushing forward transisation costs).
The airlines have problems getting credit to finance new aircraft and traffic is going down limitting the need for growth capasity..
So the customers probably are not very aggressive, they have other things on their minds.. The 747-8F has a monopoly anyway..
For the 747-8i; I think prospects will get cautious, waiting until it flies, before ordering.
3. boeing investor | November 14th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Why is Boeing any more luckier than Airbus because of oil price?
A340’s, A310’s, A300’s, first generation A330 and A320’s still litter the skies. None of those are exactly eco-friendly, let alone winning nominations for an award from Greenpeace.
Your point makes zero sense.
As for credit, pay note to the triple-digit cancelations at Airbus whose customers have bigger credit problems than you care to acknowledge!
4. Chris C | November 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Now that’s a good comment Keesje.
I really mean it.
5. Ken | November 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Having spent a large amount of time in supply chain management, the current situation with Boeing, and of of course Airbus comes as no surprise.
Aircraft component suppliers and other sub contractors are all suffering from the huge economic slow down and credit crunch around the world.
The Unions will be blaming their employers, the manufacturers will be blaming the Unions, but in reality the strike had a great effect on Boeing and it had a trickle down effect on everyone.
In France the Unions are taking one or two strikes a month to protest cutbacks due to power 8, these and many other factors are causing a slow down for Airbus.
Overall the supply situation is very tight, manufacturers are scrambling to cut their work force as demand for their product slows considerably, and tight money supplies restricts their ability to operate in an efficient manner.
Banks will not allow suppliers to carry the huge inventory’s they once did, thereby reducing the capacity to ensure timely deliveries to the assembly manufacturers.
There are a multitude of factors in play, to blame Boeing or Airbus for delays is not only unfair it hides many of the problems we rarely hear about.
Just as an example Ford Motor Co usually has two or three suppliers for every part they assemble into cars, ensuring they will always have a supply of the required pieces.
In one case all three suppliers went bankrupt within a week, imagine the horrendous logistics problem that created, and then multiply the magnitude of the problem in aircraft standards.
It boggles the mind.
6. Chris Wallace | November 14th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
At this point, Boeing should consider just firing Scott Carson, Michael Bair and Carolyn Corvi. I’d consider sacking Robert J. Pasterick, as well, just to show their serious.
Promote Patrick Shanahan to the CEO of Commercial Airplanes and give him 12 months to make it all work or he is out the door. If he makes it, then his annual bonus is tied to how many 747-8s and 787s he can successfully deliver each year.
Either that or start talking to the Japanese to see if they’re interested in buying BCA.
7. mike j | November 15th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Bloggs 1-6 are good…
I wanted to add that Boeing never had such lateness and delays prior to the merger BCA and MD in 1997 or ‘98 (787 and now 747-8)… maybe a month sometimes.
If I remember right, 757 and 767 were even under-budget and earlier than expected. And 777 wasn’t much off either.
8. Sarah | November 15th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Hate to tell all of you this but MacDonald Douglas bought Boeing several years not Boeing buying MacDonald Douglas. And they have been running it into the ground ever since by off loading everything they could. Now with them off loading half of the 787 the Vendors are sending in bad parts that don’t fit so goes the long wait . Boeing just hasn’t learned that off loading doesn’t work. As for the 787-8 program once again the Vendors are bring in tools that don’t fit the jigs and the Engineers can’t seem to get anything right. The IAM strike has nothing to do with any of the slow downs. Boeing wanted the IAM out so they could get caught up on the shortages because once again the Vendors couldn’t keep up. They were down over 15000 different parts for all programs. With the IAM out it gave the Vendors a chance to get caught up and got Boeing off the hook by putting the blame on the IAM. Boeing could have ended the strike very early but they didn’t want anyone back till the shortages were caught up. The media is being fed false information. Like always Boeing wants to point the finger in the wrong direction and never admits when they are wrong. If Boeing wants to become the class act company that it was 20 years ago it needs to bring back Bob Woodard. Now he knew how to treat his employees and had integrity in building airplanes. Bill Boeing I am sure is turning over in his grave at how his company is being ran in the ground. Boeing will never learn…………..
9. Ed | November 15th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Ken that is a great post. I might note that Boeing is one of the few US companies not to hold thier hand out for a US Government bailout. We cannot say that about EADS/Airbus, who cannot even afford to start a small business, much less launch any airplane without government aid.
mike j, you are also correct. Boeing didn’t seem to have these types of problems before the MD merger, and both the B-757 and B-767 programs came in early and under budget.
But, even with the current problems at Boeing for the late B-787 and B-747 programs, I don’t see to many airlines walking away from their commitment to these new airplanes. I cannot say that for Airbus and the A-380 and A-350 programs (the A-350-900 still does not have a finalized, frozen design).
When the price of oil goes back above (winter of 2009/2010?) you will see a lot of airlines begin to fold. Right now, I don’t see UA or US, both big Airbus customers, around for more than two more years, unless they merge with someone who is more stable. UA has already canceled many A-319s and A-320s, and US has delayed their A-320 series, A-330s, and A-350s, some for many years.
10. boeing investor | November 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I dont believe firing anyone would solve day-to-day factory problems other than new familiarization with reporting lines.
However, I’m sure Keesje is desperately upset that LH didnt cancel
That aside, the time Boeing has to rectify the weight issues on the 747-8, any perceived advantage Airbus claims on the A380 by 2012 will be meaningless -
Whichever you cut it, the A380 as a clean sheet design is struggling against the “40 year old” 747.
It will have taken Airbus 12 years from 2000-2012 to sort out the A380, only to find it still falls short compared to the 747-8.
Prediction - swathe of 747-8I orders next year - Emirates being at the forefront.
11. Chris C | November 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I agree with “boeing investor” in comment #10. I firmly predict there’s going to be more good than bad out of these delays for the phenomenal 747-8 family. If Boeing’s able to eek out further efficiency gains and drive operating empty weight down, there’s going to be significant performance boost, that should act as a catalyst for further -8I and -8F orders.
Looks as if the all-new wing on the -8 was a major cause for the delay, amongst other items noted in the article above.
Hard Fact: Lufthansa remains committed to the 747-8I, more orders will materialise for the -8I in coming months, and we may yet still see Boeing deliver airplanes sooner than the revised target dates now. It is early days.
I think Keesje will be happier if the 747-8I got more orders soon? Keesje?
12. mike j | November 16th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Now 747-8 entire year delay?!
Boeing sure doesn’t deliver on their promises anymore.
I kinda agree both with blogger 6 and 10 (as opposing perspectives).
Except that there is very most definitely “something” wrong with NOT keeping promises.
And there is “something” EVEN MORE WRONG with being completely unable to accurately plan and schedule things out, no matter how difficult the task nor how many problems crop up, so what! …it starts to show that The Management really doesn’t have a plan and doesn’t know what they’re doing and couldn’t figure it out if their lives depended on it— which means that the whole thing is a total joke!
At some point, they (Boeing/Management?/whatever) had better start making REAL (not virtual) airplanes that really fly and really DO all the things they advertize them to do.
No matter how well the PR is spread thick… they can make all the warm-n-fuzzy TV Veterens Day commercials, but they will still get a big zero for reputation.
13. keesje | November 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“If I remember right, 757 and 767 were even under-budget and earlier than expected. And 777 wasn’t much off either.”
Do you have any source for that? I think Boeing set aside $3 Billion for the 777. A few years later they had spend $5.5 Billion. Enormously overbudget it seems. Nothing new.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b777.htm
14. boeing investor | November 17th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Keesej - you must be deluded if you believe the 777 hasn’t past b.even point already.
Yes it was over budget, but unlike the A380, its actually making Boeing money - unless you have something to the contrary?
15. keesje | November 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Boeing investor, first put words in my mouth & then attack me on it? Sorry, not good enough.
16. boeing investor | November 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Calling you deluded isn’t an attack - if you see that it is, then I apologize.
But I stand my ground when I say the 777 makes money for Boeing, despite being over its original budget - also, the A380 is not a money maker in any manner.
So again, unless you have something to counter, the 777’s budgetary costs are a mute point.
17. Aurora | November 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Lufthansa has said they will not cancel and will instead seek compensation for the delays. This news is bound to disappoint the Boeing haters, and those self-loathing types associated with the company itself.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed